Fines are monetary penalties requiring the offender to pay money to the court as full or partial punishment for criminal offending. Other financial penalties, such as court costs and supervision fees, are not intermediate sanctions. Court costs offset the costs incurred by the court in the processing of a criminal case. Supervision fees are monies by a person under supervision and are commonly applied to offenders in an effort to offset the cost of corrections, such as probation supervision.

The fine is one of the oldest known penalties, dating back to before

Biblical times when it was used for punishment of criminal and moral offenses (Mullaney, 1988). In the 10th century, kings and other royal officials imposed fines for criminal punishments and by the 13th and

14th centuries, fines became one of the most frequently used punishments in Europe when criminal justice systems began to develop. Then it was commonly used in combination with capital punishment, exile, and public shaming (Peters, 1995). The fine remained a viable penalty in

The Washington Post disclosed this NSA slide obtained from Snowden in October 2013. It formed part of a briefing on “Google Cloud Exploitation,” through which the NSA accessed communications flowing between Google data centers located outside the United States. The Post story stated that the NSA did the same thing with Yahoo’s foreign communication links. This activity formed part of the MUSCULAR program. In PRISM, Google and Yahoo received FISC-approved orders to provide information to the NSA. The exposure of MUSCULAR angered Google, Yahoo, and other U.S. technology companies, worsening their deteriorating relationship with the NSA and damaging their global reputation for providing secure services.

In the MUSCULAR program, neither company was aware that the NSA was accessing its foreign-based communications facilities, which raised questions about the NSA’s authority to conduct this activity. The most likely source was the president’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign intelligence, as regulated by Executive Order 12333, initially adopted in 1981, and considered a less restrictive set of rules than FISA. A former State Department official published an op-ed in July 2014 arguing that U.S. government collection and retention of communications by U.S. persons under Executive Order 12333 violated the Fourth Amendment. In August 2014, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board decided to examine Executive Order 12333 for its implications for privacy and civil liberties, and the ACLU released documents in October 2014 on the executive order it obtained under the Freedom of Information Act as part of its effort to increase scrutiny of the order.

We hear it said nowadays that there is no “race problem,” but only a “class problem.” … From a practical angle there is a point in this reasoning. But from a theoretical angle it contains escapism in new form…. And it tends to conceal the whole system of special deprivations visited upon the Negro only because he is not white.

Gunnar Myrdal, An American Dilemma

Executive and legislative branches, which for generations now have considered these types of policies and procedures, should be permitted to employ them with candor and with confidence that a constitutional violation does not occur whenever a decisionmaker considers the impact a given approach might have on students of different races.

The United States made history on November 4, 2008, by electing Barack Obama as its first African American president, generating a sense of pride and a collective celebration that was shared worldwide. The installation of a black president who was supported by a significant minority of white voters was an occasion imbued with great political, social, historical, and cultural meaning. That meaning has been interpreted and expressed in many different ways, and Americans will continue to attempt to determine its contours and synthesize its various strands far into the future. As we engage in this process, different segments of society will continue to identify and promote different meanings, any of which may have important ramifications. Perhaps no aspect of the election compares, however, with the milestone that it represents with respect to the history of race. Questions about how we are to understand racial conditions in society and what the proper role of public policy and law should be in addressing – or avoiding – racial issues will gain greater salience as we seek ways of building upon the understandings the election has fostered. These questions about where we are on the issue of race are not just factual or descriptive; they are deeply political as well, having implications for how and when we respond to social problems and how we define the scope of our collective obligations.

Boot camps are highly popular residential intermediate sanctions typically used for young offenders and provide for very structured and military-like activities such as strict discipline, physical training and labor, drill, and a regimented schedule of daily activities. Boot camps differ from other intermediate sanctions in that participants are incarcerated, albeit for short and intensive terms, participants are often under the jurisdiction of state or county correctional departments and therefore considered inmates, and many boot camps are located on or near prison grounds.

Although the term boot camp is often used synonymously with shock incarceration, boot camps are actually only one form of shock incarceration. Shock incarceration programs vary, but the common feature is that an offender is confined for some period; this incarceration experience is typically brief but intense. As the term suggests, the idea behind shock incarceration is to provide a deterrent shock or jolt to the offender. To achieve this sense of shock, boot camps are structured and emphasize discipline and rigorous physical training. Boot camps differ from other forms of shock incarceration in that participants are separated from other inmates, participate in physical training drill, and the atmosphere of the program is militaristic in nature with a strict daily structure of activities (MacKenzie & Shaw, 1993).

The Scientific Revolution introduced the concept of nature as a machine and human reason as superior to natural processes. The subsequent Industrial Revolution produced great “progress” in terms of technological development and efficient production, and the institutional transformation of some commons into concentrated capital served a real social need to overcome a brutal subsistence way of life. Concentrated capital meant industry, scientific and artistic development, better medicine, and eventually more hygienic conditions for many.

However, capital concentration also required the “commodification” of land. Toward that end, the landed class allied with government institutions to defeat the resistance of people who were living communally with subsistence agriculture and limited specialization. Their traditional productive processes were transformed into modern capitalist food production and manufacturing. This effort was aided by a theory of unlimited property rights, based on an ideology of freedom, improvement, and productive labor, which John Locke provided, and by a theory of unlimited state sovereignty, offered by Thomas Hobbes.1